Damnit:{

yup :(

stfu stop turning this into a flame war.


Anyways, it is weird and kinda confusing, but accept it :D

haha not flaming, we were saying dammit cuz we thought 5 was 5 and not 4.

I just wonder if its even possible for any Human Brain to understand these concepts. If maybe somewhere out there, their is a human being who has come up with his own theory that actually makes perfect sense and could at least scratch the surface for the general population to understand just a little more than they thought possible.

But yeah...I was thinking to myself: "Self, would it be possible to teach colors to a Colorblind person?" Because in a way you could maybe show them differences in the colors because they already have an understanding of black and white. So you can somehow teach them some of the darker colors and lighter colors. It would have to be basic colors, I.e. Purple, Green, Blue, Michael Jackson White, Yellow.

But I would like to think its possible. :idea:

I only read the title and the topic poster so..

dunno wagwan.

Your (judicators) interpretation of baudrillard is more in line with what derrida would say. Ive always thought of baudrillard as derrida on steroids mixed with crack. Ill read the rest of this stuff some time and respond.

EDIT:

Oh man judi already brought up derrida i lose :(.

Im not really that familer with baudrillard and his views on language because when i think of him i think of that whole hyperreal/disney world garbage that is impossible to understand.

I agree with derrida in theory but in practice i agree with plato. I guess that means i think plato is right because i usually think that reality is greater than theory.

except, I've long answered that question that it's all man-made symbols to ease communication rather than actually equating to something. None of what you know is true (or real).